Bundy’s truths were painful for many Americans

Cliven Bundy, who was being hailed as a courageous hero for his stand against a federal power grab of his cattle in Nevada, made what passes nowadays for a fatal verbal faux pas, and is now being condemned by the same political conservatives who were earlier praising him.

Bundy, who is a 67-year-old rancher and not a 30-something politician or TV commentator (they would have known just who they can slime and who they can’t say a single word of criticism about) opined to a New York Times reporter that American “Negroes” (oh, GROSS! A totally verboten word in today’s politically correct circles, Mr. Bundy!) have as a group been made lazy wards of a (well-meaning) federal government via food stamps, SSI, Section 8 housing, etc., and that he wondered if maybe they weren’t better off as slaves, back in the 19th Century.

Well. As an editor I used to work for would have said, “If you want to start an argument with me, you’ll have to change the subject, Mr. Bundy.” Anyone who doesn’t think that a sizeable minority of our population, black, White, and every other race, hasn’t been rendered dependent and — in many cases — very content to be so, by the federal government’s efforts to alleviate poverty, hasn’t been paying attention for the last 50 years.

And while I certainly don’t defend or condone slavery (and keep in mind that members of all the races of man have been slaves at one time or another), I can see his point that it did give slaves in the American South a certain structure for their lives, which many of those in the inner cities no longer have.

But that’s beside the point. Of course what he said had nothing to do with the federal government’s attempts to seize his several hundred head of cattle which he had been grazing on “government land,” allegedly, for a long time. As had his ancestors, going back 100 years or more. But it doesn’t matter to the liberal press that his ill-advised words about “Negroes” are totally irrelevant. The press pounced on them with gleeful, self-righteous indignation, saying, in effect, “See? See? We told you he was a lying, racist Nazi! Here’s the proof, right from his halitosis-filled, White trash mouth!” Or words to that effect.

And, supposedly, they’ll extend that condemnation to anyone who sides with him from now on — specifically, the 500 or so militiamen who rallied to his defense of his cattle in rural Nevada, many of them armed, standing down uniformed, weapon-toting federal employees who seized part of Bundy’s cattle, then turned them loose again in the fear that pressing the issue further might lead to armed conflict.

Kind of like the Minutemen standing up to the British Army at Lexington and Concord. But then, that’s just my opinion.

Conservative commentators on Fox News had taken the lead in defending Cliven Bundy, his family, and the Americans who went there to help him defend his property. But then, when his remarks about “Negroes” and “slavery” surfaced, the Foxes ran like scared rabbits, falling all over themselves to get as far away from Bundy as they could, condemning his remarks out of hand, etc. Not one had the courage to say, “Look, what Mr. Bundy said was unfortunate and ill-advised. But it doesn’t change a damn thing about the issue of the federal government claiming ownership of that land, and trying to seize his cattle.” Nope; they ran like their pants were on fire. Even over at Fox, they’re TERRIFIED of being called RACIST!

By the way, I’ve been watching Fox News this morning also, and they just had a panel discussion in which it appeared there was a contest to see who could denounce Cliven Bundy the most strenuously. What cowards.

Here’s a little news for Fox, and all the other media channels and newspapers who have jumped onto the “Cliven Bundy is a racist” bandwagon: Millions of White Americans — and probably some black, yellow and red ones, too — agree with what he said about blacks. They wouldn’t say it in a public forum, or if they were being interviewed by the national media, but they believe it’s true. That is to say, while they may well have black friends (as I do), they view urban blacks, as a group, as being dependents who are content to live at the public’s expense, whose violent crime rate is very high, whose lives are often shiftless and aimless. They are human beings, just like all the rest of us; but their government and their (often self-appointed) “leaders” have debased them and led them astray. And of course, the welfare system has affected numbers of White, Hispanic, and Asian Americans in the same way. Go to any city of any size in America, and you can see the evidence of it just by walking down the street. Just as Cliven Bundy said, as a matter of fact.

But Mr. Bundy’s statements, while true, are extremely uncomfortable hearing for many Americans nowadays. Any criticism of darker-skinned people — especially African Americans — by a White American, which reaches the ear of the news media, is immediately trumpeted for the whole country to hear, then denounced as “racist.” Then all the “right sort of people” (or should I say, “left”?), from President Obama on down, line up to take their turn at the mic and heap hot coals and condemnation on the head of the speaker. Whether what was said was true or not, gets lost in the shuffle.

Because sometimes the truth hurts — severely. It collides harshly with our pre-conceived notions about things in our world — in this case, race. And this was a perfect way for the leftist media to divert everyone’s attention from the real issue: Whether a dubious claim by the federal government on land Cliven Bundy’s family had been grazing their cattle on for over a century, justified the approach of armed, uniformed federal agents to seize said cattle to satisfy grazing taxes that the feds say Bundy owes them. The federal government was just plain wrong in its approach. As any lawyer can tell you, they can simply wait for Bundy’s death, then file a lien against his estate for the money.

But Bundy was too unsophisticated, and too bluntly honest, so he said what he thought.

Apparently he also thought we still had freedom of speech in this country. Looks like that doesn’t apply any more to extremely touchy subjects.

If racism is defined as:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usu. involving the idea that one’s own race is superior.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based on such a doctrine.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
then I am hard put to understand just what Mr. Bundy said that was actually racist. He didn’t say that Blacks were an inferior race. He didn’t promote White supremacy. He didn’t advocate a return to slavery, as some commentators have stated. What he did say, in a somewhat unsophisticated way, was that Blacks who are dependent on the government to survive are not very much better off than they were when they were slaves.
Notice that most of the commentary over Mr. Bundy’s remarks is whether they are racist. The question no one wants to ask is whether they are true and if they are true what can be done to fix things. It is as if there is some kind of Pavlovian reflex that causes people on the left, and too many on the right, to shout racism if they hear a bell ringing.
I would think that Mr. Bundy is less of a racist than those who do not want to talk about real problems that many urban Blacks have and are willing to see generation after generation being lost rather than admit top failed policies.

If racism is defined as:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usu. involving the idea that one’s own race is superior.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based on such a doctrine.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
then I am hard put to understand just what Mr. Bundy said that was actually racist. He didn’t say that Blacks were an inferior race. He didn’t promote White supremacy. He didn’t advocate a return to slavery, as some commentators have stated. What he did say, in a somewhat unsophisticated way, was that Blacks who are dependent on the government to survive are not very much better off than they were when they were slaves.
Notice that most of the commentary over Mr. Bundy’s remarks is whether they are racist. The question no one wants to ask is whether they are true and if they are true what can be done to fix things. It is as if there is some kind of Pavlovian reflex that causes people on the left, and too many on the right, to shout racism if they hear a bell ringing.
I would think that Mr. Bundy is less of a racist than those who do not want to talk about real problems that many urban Blacks have and are willing to see generation after generation being lost rather than admit to failed policies.